Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1971 · Torts

Tortsfalse imprisonmentshopkeeper's privilegereasonable groundsfalse imprisonmentshopkeeper's privilegereasonable groundsprobable cause

Facts

The seventy-year-old plaintiff entered Kennedy's to buy a sport coat, removed and pocketed an ascot he already owned, purchased the coat, and, just before leaving the store, put the ascot back around his neck. As he stepped out the door, employee Goss stopped him, asked where he got the scarf, firmly grasped his arm, and told him he had better go back and see the manager, while another employee stood nearby and several bystanders stared. The plaintiff complied, pausing twice on the way upstairs because of chest and back pain, and a salesman then confirmed that the plaintiff had bought a coat and that the ascot was his. As a direct result of the emotional upset, the plaintiff was hospitalized and treated for a myocardial infarct.

Issue

Whether the evidence permitted the jury to find false imprisonment and whether the defendants were protected by the statutory shopkeeper's privilege under G. L. c. 231, § 94B. More specifically, the question was whether Goss had reasonable grounds to believe the plaintiff was committing or attempting to commit larceny, and whether "reasonable grounds" is judged by an objective or subjective standard.

Rule

False imprisonment may be established by any general restraint of personal liberty, including physical force or a demonstration of physical power that can apparently be avoided only by submission. Under G. L. c. 231, § 94B, a merchant has a defense only if the person was detained in a reasonable manner, for not more than a reasonable length of time, and there were reasonable grounds to believe the person was committing or attempting to commit larceny; "reasonable grounds" has the same meaning as probable cause and is judged by an objective reasonably prudent and cautious person standard, not by the shopkeeper's honest suspicion alone.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a department store in Providence, Lena Ortiz paid for a sweater and walked toward the sidewalk. A loss-prevention employee stepped directly in front of her at the doorway, pointed to a back office, and said in a firm voice, "You need to come with me now," while a second employee stood beside him and several shoppers watched. He never touched Lena, and she complied because she believed she had no real choice.

If Lena sues for false imprisonment, the store's best argument is that there was no confinement because no force was used. How should a court likely rule?

Explanation. False imprisonment is not limited to formal arrest or hands-on restraint. A general restraint is enough, including a demonstration of physical power or authority that, to all appearances, can be avoided only by submission. Here, blocking the exit, directing Lena to a back office, positioning a second employee nearby, and creating a public scene could permit a factfinder to conclude that her liberty was effectively restrained. The majority opinion recognizes restraint by physical force or by a show of authority compelling compliance.